The documentary of an inconvenient truth presenting former Vice president Al Gore highlights the environmental disaster global warming. Similar to any film there are review that give the film a high rate while others give it a low rate. This essay will compare between two reviews.The first review by Scott which was negative looks at the documentary from a different perspective by claiming that the main objective was to advocate Al Gore rather than the issue of global warming (Scott). His criticism arises from the facts of the different scenes of the documentary that talk about gore’s life. He also mentioned that if the movie was truly just to raise the awareness of global warming the disruptive scenes of Gore’s life wouldn’t be added.
The second review which was positve by David Edwards, states that the film was a clear investigation of global warming. For instance, he highlights that in the past 14 years ten of the hottest years on record occurred, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is increasing. For this reason, Al Gore recommends that action must be taken by politician in order to save the plant(Edwards).
While global warming is a hotly debated subject, In my opinion the documentary highlighted the awareness of global warming which is exactly what people need to understand the circumstances. I totally diagree that the movie's objective was to advocate Gore, as it was clear that the emphasis was on global warming.
Bibliography
Edwards, David. "Starring: ,Three Movie Buffs Review." ThreeMovieBuffs.com: Movie Reviews! 25Nov.2006.09Apr.2009.http://www.threemoviebuffs.com/review.php?movieID=inconvenienttruth
Scott,News Headlines, Celebs and Football -Mirror.co.uk. 09-April-2009
.http://www.mirror.co.uk/tm_headline=an-inconvenient-truth&method=full&objectid=17737386&siteid=94762-name_page.html
.http://www.mirror.co.uk/tm_headline=an-inconvenient-truth&method=full&objectid=17737386&siteid=94762-name_page.html
No comments:
Post a Comment